Posted
by
msmash
on Friday September 22, 2017 @11:45AM
from the promise dept.

Red Hat says it has amassed over 2,000 patents and won't enforce them if the technologies they describe are used in properly-licensed open-source software. From a report: The company has made more or less the same offer since 2002, when it first made a "Patent Promise" in order to "discourage patent aggression in free and open source software." Back then the company didn't own many patents and claimed its non-enforcement promise covered 35 per cent of open-source software. The Promise was revised in order to reflect the company's growing patent trove and to spruce up the language it uses to make it more relevant. The revised promise "applies to all software meeting the free software or open source definitions of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI)." [...] It's not a blank cheque. Hardware isn't covered and Red Hat is at pains to point out that "Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that practicing Red Hat's patented inventions does not infringe others' patents or other intellectual property." But the company says 99 percent of FOSS software should be covered by the Promise.

Software you quote is not forced on anyone. Distros generally started using software like pulseaudio because it is better - meaning that it solves a problem that was not solved before.

For example, I use Bluetooth headphones on Linux and because of pulseaudio, said headphones work. Bluetooth audio does not work with alsa so without pulseaudio, the same headphones would not work. This is why distros started adopting pulseaudio.

Well, sorry to rain on your parade, but you'll have exactly the same software in FreeBSD, unless you're using only the base OS. And if you're not, plenty of non-systemd Linux distros, and quite more stable and secure that FreeBSD.

The problem was that systemd was railroaded so fast through most of the major distros -- almost as if it were an insideous update to a proprietary OS, with the questionable acceptance by the Debian technical committee being the worst outcome, as it affected so many derivative distros.

This is untrue. Yes, many distros decided to adopt it in a short timeframe, but Red Hat had been testing systemd for years before that, and it's not like this was the first time that someone has either tried to replace sysvinit or someone has tried to introduce process tracking to the kernel. The pain points were known for decades, and as someone who has written a (short) book on the shell, anyone who prefers Bash as a scripting language has brain damage.

Debian's technical committee was split between systemd and upstart, with OpenRC being a distant third, and only one person who favored sysvinit. Since it is hopefully not in dispute that upstart was the worse option there, we can consider the decision to have been the best outcome. Note also that this was merely a decision about the default init system: sysvinit is still supported. The reason why sysvinit was not popular, however, was that the init scripts are comparatively more difficult to maintain, and generally slower. If Devuan has decided to shoulder the maintenance burden, I'm sure I wish them the best of luck with that.

The anti-systemd crowd here are morons, severally and collectively. No, systemd is not perfect, but there's a reason why people have been trying to replace sysvinit for the past three decades. Even OpenRC is almost entirely written in C. Either learn why, or quit complaining.

This is sentiment that I would broadly agree with. I don't dispute the usefulness of Bash as a command language, but scripting is not where it excels. Arrays are painful, conditionals are an external command, and functions are limited to positional parameters. Even parsing command-line options is ugly. Where Bash shines is the ten-lines-or-less script, the glue code that marshals other commands, or transforms output into another input. It also is extremely well suited to processing structured or semi-struct

FFS. They did not PUSH anything into anything, other than maybe Fedora. All other distros use these programs by their own choice. Either they are too lazy to develop their own products, or they are too stupid. Or MAYBE the other distros see value in systemd, pulseaudio, gnome, networkmanager. Wow. That's a thought. You seem to think very highly of RedHat engineers, and very poorly of other distro engineers if you think anything was PUSHED on them.

No. A patent portfolio is a good defense against patent infringement lawsuits by other practicing entities. Not only can you counter-sue, but you can often preempt lawsuits with broad cross licensing agreements.

i would rather see Redhat be turned over to CentOS, and if Oracle wants to keep borrowing code then they would have to obey the GPL and keep what ever code they change open so it can be folded back in to the FOSS Linux community, it is only fair since 99% of the code oracle's linux has been developed as GPL anyway

Until the patent laws are reformed (good luck with that), companies are forced to play the game and protect their investment, particularly since the advent of patent trolls, in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits.

Some companies participate in patent pools as a means of protection AND advancements.

Heck, I know patents are evil. But I have one to my name. We have incentives to apply for them if they are found to have value.

No, the abuses make it worse but the underlying principles aren't good either. Penalizing someone for using their own property in a non-violent way, just because someone else did it first, is evil. Copyright is wrong too, for many of the same reasons and others besides, but at least there you can limit your expose to things others might claim copyright on—only copies are prohibited, and you can't copy what you've never seen. That doesn't work with patents; whoever comes up with the idea first gets a m

Patent owners are given a temporary monopoly in exchange for society at large getting to use (and, more importantly, build on) the patented thing after the monopoly period ends.

That sounds like a fair exchange to me. It's certainly better than the situation that patents are intended to fix: everybody keeping their inventions a secret, preventing society as a whole from benefiting from them.

Now, I'm speaking of the principle behind patents. Patent law as it currently exists in the US is an abomination: thing

The AC3 decoder in FFmpeg is GPL, I guess this falls in the 1%, because I know Dolby would sue are ass

How so? I thought Dolby Digital [wikipedia.org] was used in DVD since 1997 and in cinema since 1992, putting it over the 20-year limit on patents. Which subsisting patents cover the standardized form of Dolby Digital?

Because some software is under really strange inscrutable licenses that cannot be reliably determined to be free or open source. That doesn't guarantee that they aren't free or open source, it just means we can't be sure until courts get involved.

And since it is generally really obscure software, it is highly unlikely that the courts will get involved.

i seen source code with no licence at all, the author lost interest and abandoned it, or maybe died, the code is just up for grabs, legally it is in eternal limbo
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]

it is probably some odd kernel driver for some obscure hardware that is free enough and the source code is open for inspection and modification which would be good enough to go in to the kernel source tree but maybe it has no license at all, just raw code open for anything

I see it as little different from the copyleft model used by the GNU project on which Fedora and RHEL are built: distribute your program as free software, and assert your copyright against those who refuse to pass on equivalent rights to the users.

So, this understanding... if its not in a contract. Then its just a promise. I promise to not sue you for using my IP giving condition XYZ. Until one day I decide to sue you for using my IP given condition XYZ.

Refusing to use defense patents does not cause patent law to change, it simply causes FOSS companies to die and be replaced in the market by companies making proprietary software that can afford to pay the trolls. You have to work in the universe you live in, not the perfect one.

True, I didn't claim otherwise. But it does perpetuate patent abuse (since it's a kind of patent abuse in and of itself, in my opinion).

Aside from that, the danger of defensive patents is that those patents are very likely, sooner or later, to fall into the hands of patent trolls themselves. And the more of them you accumulate, the more likely this will happen.

I hate the idea that a single corporation holds patents covering 99% of open source software. That's an extremely precarious position to be in. It means we not only have to trust the company to be well-behaved, but we have to trust that any future owners of the company or the patent hoard have to be well-behaved.

In other words, it adds quite a lot of uncertainty to working with open source software.

Yes I understand that Red Hat offers the source code and allows CentOS to operate. Yet if I google "Red Hat linux working with NSA backdoor"
there are all kinds of stories but none for example Slackware or Debian or Ubuntu working with NSA. And there are suspicions about just
what their end game is with systemd. Personally, I don't trust their ethics. Like any other corp they're greedy. Despite their protestations to
the contrary. Apparently now that Microsoft claims to be all "Open Source" the term lost an